Firstly - Airman, congratulations to you and your team on another excellent edition of VOTV - The Nelson Edition! As always a great read, sone brilliant articles and well worth the £2.
A great article by Matt on CP. Despite at times reading more like an obituary, it told us all we knew and more about CP's love of the Club, it's fans and it's history and how he managed us in what where without doubt difficult times.
The Editorial is probably the best place to go to see why the G21 met and the concerns raised in their original statement are again raised here. However, the Editorial itself is filled with words and phrases like "apparently", "evidently", "suspect", "our Judgement", "our view", "we still don't know", "we believe", "we have heard" etc. No direct additional facts, just (some correctly justified) concerns as to the direction of the Club. All of which require raising, but, at the moment, I don't see as requiring the initial call to arms response and certainly not the formation of a separate group outside the Trust.
There are to grudgingly positive artilces on both the revised planning application for Sparrows Lane and next seasons ticketing policy. Both of which I'd like to see re-visited in a years time as to their success or not.
Airmans Diary are still the first pages I turn to for all the inside gossip of what's going on inside the Club. Again it doesn't fail to disappoint. Whoever passes him some of these snippets, then please don't ever stop!
We then have SD's column - someone from the G21 who has at least bothered to respond to the queries raised on the opening post on this thread. Again a good read, mainly about the changing face of football club ownership in this Country, but when focussing on what's happened at CAFC, the same tired old phrases come out that are just repeating what's been said in the Editorial. "constant rumours", "as we suspect", "widely reported", "under the impression", "it is believed to be", "it has been said". "it's doubtful". I get the feeling that both of these articles should have been clearly written without these journalistic caveats - and then the word allegedly added at the end.
Next is another Matt article on that pantomime villain Pardew. Excellent piece with a lot of unkown facts about the only manager with a banning order out on him. I just hope he doesn't read it himself. He's quite obviously a thoroughly nasty individual (Pardew, not Matt).
Then there is an article on Airman himself and his relationship and it's breakdown with the Club (amongst others). Thanks at last for you version of the story Airman - it certainly made things clearer from my point of view and it's understandable about your resentment of certain individuals who are running the Club and who really are the good guys and the bad 'uns. Thankfully some of the latter have gone and I have a feeling that the current top trio are soon to be found out that they are currently batting above their average. From my impression of KM she is a smart cookie and doesn't have the wool pulled over her eyes too easily. However, I do believe a lot of people's experience of change management is not a million miles away from yours, so just try not to let it grind at you so often!
Finally, no Fifth Column. Is the cardiganed one on strike?
I have just finished reading VOTV. I entirely agree with Addickted. There's a lot of background detail that has emerged and it does indeed greatly add to our understanding of more recent events. Matt Wright's article on CP is excellent but painful reading. Someone had asked on CL what exactly did people mean by the talk of 'losing our Charlton ' . The various contributors to VOTV have more than adequately answered that question. Wherever we are currently heading, as the great social experiment stutters on, remains far from clear, but that which we have lost grows ever more evident.
There hasn't been a fifth column for a long time now and there won't be another. Time moves on unlike your fashion sense Addickted : - )
Agree it was a very strong VOTV. A lot to agree with, disagree with or to ponder which is surely the point
The detail of Airman's dismissal is IMHO the biggest revelation.
Matt Wright is such a good writer and Steve Dixon writes with passion and insight.
And as Seriously Red chose to make the comparison so much better than Trust News..
As Addickted says the Diary pages are always a good read even if you sometimes need a degree in reading between the lines to get all the references. The rapid departure of Kieran Tingle being a case in point.
Sad to see the whole Murray/Varney fall out laid out in print. I can see both sides and just regret it has come to this. I still respect both despite it all and only wish I could lock the two in a room to sort it out. We know that when they work together the winner is Charlton Athletic.
I've asked the questions to Meire and Powell once and Murray twice.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks that they will change the answers already given ?
Anyway, we're going round in circles :-)
Who picks the players for recruitment? Does the manager have autonomy to create a squad of players he wants and needs? Does the manager have a say in what players to keep? Why does a senior manager in the inter club settup tell us our best players are likely go to SL in full knowlege of the owner?
Where will the money from sales of best players go?
In the first instance, the group is seeking an urgent face-to-face meeting with Roland Duchatelet or Katrien Miere in order try to get a better understanding of the owner’s intentions and report back to the wider support
KM - jog on boys, I'll listen to your moaning when I've got nothing better to do. But thanks for giving me an excuse to ignore CAST too.
She indicated a willingness to meet representatives of the group, as well as the supporters' trust, but said that this would not be possible at present because the club's focus is on avoiding relegation.
We welcome Ms Meire’s response and acknowledge that this is a very busy period.
G21: we certainly showed them. She'll think twice before she bins anymore club legends. Once again evil doers quake when the Justice League flexes its muscles.
Firstly - Airman, congratulations to you and your team on another excellent edition of VOTV - The Nelson Edition! As always a great read, sone brilliant articles and well worth the £2.
A great article by Matt on CP. Despite at times reading more like an obituary, it told us all we knew and more about CP's love of the Club, it's fans and it's history and how he managed us in what where without doubt difficult times.
The Editorial is probably the best place to go to see why the G21 met and the concerns raised in their original statement are again raised here. However, the Editorial itself is filled with words and phrases like "apparently", "evidently", "suspect", "our Judgement", "our view", "we still don't know", "we believe", "we have heard" etc. No direct additional facts, just (some correctly justified) concerns as to the direction of the Club. All of which require raising, but, at the moment, I don't see as requiring the initial call to arms response and certainly not the formation of a separate group outside the Trust.
There are to grudgingly positive artilces on both the revised planning application for Sparrows Lane and next seasons ticketing policy. Both of which I'd like to see re-visited in a years time as to their success or not.
Airmans Diary are still the first pages I turn to for all the inside gossip of what's going on inside the Club. Again it doesn't fail to disappoint. Whoever passes him some of these snippets, then please don't ever stop!
We then have SD's column - someone from the G21 who has at least bothered to respond to the queries raised on the opening post on this thread. Again a good read, mainly about the changing face of football club ownership in this Country, but when focussing on what's happened at CAFC, the same tired old phrases come out that are just repeating what's been said in the Editorial. "constant rumours", "as we suspect", "widely reported", "under the impression", "it is believed to be", "it has been said". "it's doubtful". I get the feeling that both of these articles should have been clearly written without these journalistic caveats - and then the word allegedly added at the end.
Next is another Matt article on that pantomime villain Pardew. Excellent piece with a lot of unkown facts about the only manager with a banning order out on him. I just hope he doesn't read it himself. He's quite obviously a thoroughly nasty individual (Pardew, not Matt).
Then there is an article on Airman himself and his relationship and it's breakdown with the Club (amongst others). Thanks at last for you version of the story Airman - it certainly made things clearer from my point of view and it's understandable about your resentment of certain individuals who are running the Club and who really are the good guys and the bad 'uns. Thankfully some of the latter have gone and I have a feeling that the current top trio are soon to be found out that they are currently batting above their average. From my impression of KM she is a smart cookie and doesn't have the wool pulled over her eyes too easily. However, I do believe a lot of people's experience of change management is not a million miles away from yours, so just try not to let it grind at you so often!
Finally, no Fifth Column. Is the cardiganed one on strike?
Always well-written. Can't help feeling it was a little self-indulgent this particular one, and the hatchet pieces on Pardew and Murray - however well-earned they may be - felt a little unnecessary. It's character assassination for its own sake, with no balance, objective reasoning or right of reply. I'm not sure why we should concern ourselves with individual squabbles either.
I also picked up on the indefinites littered throughout the Oak Group justification. Reading about the message to Powell re Thuram, it seems it's not so much about the owner insisting on picking the team but that he's trying to offload an expensive mistake and take advantage of the fact the FA Cup is televised throughout Europe. Not saying it's right, incidentally, but it's a very different thing from 'you'll play who I tell you'. In fact it's the sort of political compromise you get in modern day business, and I'm quite sure it's not unheard of even in the English leagues, although entirely inappropriate to a sporting competition where a key principle is - and indeed it's a rule - that you should pick your strongest team.
Firstly - Airman, congratulations to you and your team on another excellent edition of VOTV - The Nelson Edition! As always a great read, sone brilliant articles and well worth the £2.
A great article by Matt on CP. Despite at times reading more like an obituary, it told us all we knew and more about CP's love of the Club, it's fans and it's history and how he managed us in what where without doubt difficult times.
The Editorial is probably the best place to go to see why the G21 met and the concerns raised in their original statement are again raised here. However, the Editorial itself is filled with words and phrases like "apparently", "evidently", "suspect", "our Judgement", "our view", "we still don't know", "we believe", "we have heard" etc. No direct additional facts, just (some correctly justified) concerns as to the direction of the Club. All of which require raising, but, at the moment, I don't see as requiring the initial call to arms response and certainly not the formation of a separate group outside the Trust.
There are to grudgingly positive artilces on both the revised planning application for Sparrows Lane and next seasons ticketing policy. Both of which I'd like to see re-visited in a years time as to their success or not.
Airmans Diary are still the first pages I turn to for all the inside gossip of what's going on inside the Club. Again it doesn't fail to disappoint. Whoever passes him some of these snippets, then please don't ever stop!
We then have SD's column - someone from the G21 who has at least bothered to respond to the queries raised on the opening post on this thread. Again a good read, mainly about the changing face of football club ownership in this Country, but when focussing on what's happened at CAFC, the same tired old phrases come out that are just repeating what's been said in the Editorial. "constant rumours", "as we suspect", "widely reported", "under the impression", "it is believed to be", "it has been said". "it's doubtful". I get the feeling that both of these articles should have been clearly written without these journalistic caveats - and then the word allegedly added at the end.
Next is another Matt article on that pantomime villain Pardew. Excellent piece with a lot of unkown facts about the only manager with a banning order out on him. I just hope he doesn't read it himself. He's quite obviously a thoroughly nasty individual (Pardew, not Matt).
Then there is an article on Airman himself and his relationship and it's breakdown with the Club (amongst others). Thanks at last for you version of the story Airman - it certainly made things clearer from my point of view and it's understandable about your resentment of certain individuals who are running the Club and who really are the good guys and the bad 'uns. Thankfully some of the latter have gone and I have a feeling that the current top trio are soon to be found out that they are currently batting above their average. From my impression of KM she is a smart cookie and doesn't have the wool pulled over her eyes too easily. However, I do believe a lot of people's experience of change management is not a million miles away from yours, so just try not to let it grind at you so often!
Finally, no Fifth Column. Is the cardiganed one on strike?
Always well-written. Can't help feeling it was a little self-indulgent this particular one, and the hatchet pieces on Pardew and Murray - however well-earned they may be - felt a little unnecessary. It's character assassination for its own sake, with no balance, objective reasoning or right of reply. I'm not sure why we should concern ourselves with individual squabbles either.
I also picked up on the indefinites littered throughout the Oak Group justification. Reading about the message to Powell re Thuram, it seems it's not so much about the owner insisting on picking the team but that he's trying to offload an expensive mistake and take advantage of the fact the FA Cup is televised throughout Europe. Not saying it's right, incidentally, but it's a very different thing from 'you'll play who I tell you'. In fact it's the sort of political compromise you get in modern day business, and I'm quite sure it's not unheard of even in the English leagues, although entirely inappropriate to a sporting competition where a key principle is - and indeed it's a rule - that you should pick your strongest team.
I don't for a moment accept the terms "hatchet job" or "character assassination" - particularly in relation to the Murray article, which I wrote. Perhaps you could point me to any criticisms of Murray in the article and where specifically reference to him goes beyond rebutting the comments made by him at the recent public meeting (and on other occasions)?
I tend to agree the discussion is unnecessary, but perhaps that's a point for him in the first instance? What you seem to be saying is that no one has a right of reply to Murray, even when what he is saying is highly personal and not factually accurate.
could someone summarise whats gone on, on this thread im a bit confused and seem to be missing some information or do i need to buy VOTV to get the complete picture
I'm pleased the stories are emerging, if only because a lot of people got a fair bit of flak, some of it quite vicious as well, for daring to question what was actually going on. I'd would put the Thuram episode a different way. Chrissy Powell got sacked because he understood how much a cup game at Wembley would mean to the supporters, players and support staff. Because he understood, he wanted to play our strongest team and RD wanted to prevent that. Now RD has already said 'a football club is not just a matter of winning'. I find that incomprehensible, and I find it unsettling that some people still seem more intent on trying to rip Airman to shreds rather than question what the hell is happening to our club.
I'm pleased the stories are emerging, if only because a lot of people got a fair bit of flak, some of it quite vicious as well, for daring to question what was actually going on. I'd would put the Thuram episode a different way. Chrissy Powell got sacked because he understood how much a cup game at Wembley would mean to the supporters, players and support staff. Because he understood, he wanted to play our strongest team and RD wanted to prevent that. Now RD has already said 'a football club is not just a matter of winning'. I find that incomprehensible, and I find it unsettling that some people still seem more intent on trying to rip Airman to shreds rather than question what the hell is happening to our club.
Firstly - Airman, congratulations to you and your team on another excellent edition of VOTV - The Nelson Edition! As always a great read, sone brilliant articles and well worth the £2.
A great article by Matt on CP. Despite at times reading more like an obituary, it told us all we knew and more about CP's love of the Club, it's fans and it's history and how he managed us in what where without doubt difficult times.
The Editorial is probably the best place to go to see why the G21 met and the concerns raised in their original statement are again raised here. However, the Editorial itself is filled with words and phrases like "apparently", "evidently", "suspect", "our Judgement", "our view", "we still don't know", "we believe", "we have heard" etc. No direct additional facts, just (some correctly justified) concerns as to the direction of the Club. All of which require raising, but, at the moment, I don't see as requiring the initial call to arms response and certainly not the formation of a separate group outside the Trust.
There are to grudgingly positive artilces on both the revised planning application for Sparrows Lane and next seasons ticketing policy. Both of which I'd like to see re-visited in a years time as to their success or not.
Airmans Diary are still the first pages I turn to for all the inside gossip of what's going on inside the Club. Again it doesn't fail to disappoint. Whoever passes him some of these snippets, then please don't ever stop!
We then have SD's column - someone from the G21 who has at least bothered to respond to the queries raised on the opening post on this thread. Again a good read, mainly about the changing face of football club ownership in this Country, but when focussing on what's happened at CAFC, the same tired old phrases come out that are just repeating what's been said in the Editorial. "constant rumours", "as we suspect", "widely reported", "under the impression", "it is believed to be", "it has been said". "it's doubtful". I get the feeling that both of these articles should have been clearly written without these journalistic caveats - and then the word allegedly added at the end.
Next is another Matt article on that pantomime villain Pardew. Excellent piece with a lot of unkown facts about the only manager with a banning order out on him. I just hope he doesn't read it himself. He's quite obviously a thoroughly nasty individual (Pardew, not Matt).
Then there is an article on Airman himself and his relationship and it's breakdown with the Club (amongst others). Thanks at last for you version of the story Airman - it certainly made things clearer from my point of view and it's understandable about your resentment of certain individuals who are running the Club and who really are the good guys and the bad 'uns. Thankfully some of the latter have gone and I have a feeling that the current top trio are soon to be found out that they are currently batting above their average. From my impression of KM she is a smart cookie and doesn't have the wool pulled over her eyes too easily. However, I do believe a lot of people's experience of change management is not a million miles away from yours, so just try not to let it grind at you so often!
Finally, no Fifth Column. Is the cardiganed one on strike?
Always well-written. Can't help feeling it was a little self-indulgent this particular one, and the hatchet pieces on Pardew and Murray - however well-earned they may be - felt a little unnecessary. It's character assassination for its own sake, with no balance, objective reasoning or right of reply. I'm not sure why we should concern ourselves with individual squabbles either.
I also picked up on the indefinites littered throughout the Oak Group justification. Reading about the message to Powell re Thuram, it seems it's not so much about the owner insisting on picking the team but that he's trying to offload an expensive mistake and take advantage of the fact the FA Cup is televised throughout Europe. Not saying it's right, incidentally, but it's a very different thing from 'you'll play who I tell you'. In fact it's the sort of political compromise you get in modern day business, and I'm quite sure it's not unheard of even in the English leagues, although entirely inappropriate to a sporting competition where a key principle is - and indeed it's a rule - that you should pick your strongest team.
I don't for a moment accept the terms "hatchet job" or "character assassination" - particularly in relation to the Murray article, which I wrote. Perhaps you could point me to any criticisms of Murray in the article and where specifically reference to him goes beyond rebutting the comments made by him at the recent public meeting (and on other occasions)?
I tend to agree the discussion is unnecessary, but perhaps that's a point for him in the first instance? What you seem to be saying is that no one has a right of reply to Murray, even when what he is saying is highly personal and not factually accurate.
Well let me put it this way. I had no idea Murray had made any controversial statements, references to you - or indeed anything at all worth listening to at any recent public meeting. I wonder how many of the rest of us did until they read that piece. Frankly - and sadly, because I hold him in great esteem for his custodianship of the club over a long period - the guy's been little more than a spin machine for a while now and I take most of what he says with the proverbial pinch of salt. It's especially sad to see his and Varney's relationship broken given how with Curbs it was so pivotal to our successful years.
Anyway, you're right, I was a bit strong there and am happy to withdraw those references as I applied them to the Murray article.
I stand by them for the entirely unnecessary and frankly beneath us article from the usually more judicious Matt Wright. That can't be described as anything other. I'm no Pardew fan and am aware just how badly he behaved - and that's a big part of the reason why I remain so positive about (and why I think people underestimate) what Parkinson achieved - but why now, why at all? Even if he's the most odious man on earth, why bother when we got him out of our club over 5 years ago?
There was a flavour about this Voice that made me feel a little uneasy, Rick. Can't quite put my finger on it, but it seemed angry for reasons that weren't entirely clear. The Pardew article epitomised it for me. I guess the first post-Powell one was always going to be a little emotional but I don't think it was just that. It was almost as if Powell's sacking released the shackles from you and the other writers, and it became a bit of a free for all, all the things you'd wanted to say for so long you all suddenly got off your chest without stopping and thinking, should I be doing this?
EDIT: I meant to add, I asked myself the question - could Rick not have handled the Murray thing by means of the Diary? I think its length given its focus on discrediting Murray['s comments] was the problem - perhaps it might have been handled in another way?
Great read though, and very high quality writing throughout.
could someone summarise whats gone on, on this thread im a bit confused and seem to be missing some information or do i need to buy VOTV to get the complete picture
I'd make a great salesman for VOTV if only Rick's rates were better... ;-)
I don't for a moment accept the terms "hatchet job" or "character assassination" - particularly in relation to the Murray article, which I wrote. Perhaps you could point me to any criticisms of Murray in the article and where specifically reference to him goes beyond rebutting the comments made by him at the recent public meeting (and on other occasions)?
I tend to agree the discussion is unnecessary, but perhaps that's a point for him in the first instance? What you seem to be saying is that no one has a right of reply to Murray, even when what he is saying is highly personal and not factually accurate.
100% agree that this is certainly no hatchet job. There are a number of interesting insights and recollections but no silver bullet. The fans and ex staff members and directors have the right of reply to Murray for he is the chairman and individuals can choose to make comments as and when. How they execute that right of reply is possibly where we differ... and perhaps there is more than one way? I fail to see how the club is going to seriously entertain a discussion with a group of ex employees but that has been covered much higher up the thread by those such as Grapevine49 who are far more articulate than I. Going forwards it is very clear to me that the newly installed management structure will be held to account by the new owner and that all costs will be examined - is the new structure appropriate and are the individuals the right people for this time. It is logical that we will see change over the summer as new strategies and ideas are employed - will our hearts bleed over departures? RD has already said 'a football club is not just a matter of winning' - this can be interpreted in many ways but it will be intersting to see meat placed on the bones... cheaper season tickets is just one strand to that philosophy... I believe that while improving the playing side, the new owner will wish to obtain more value for money from the whole club operating model. I have never seen how the administration costs stack up for CAFC and which ones are match related. So no inside knowledge just common sense that everything needs to be geared towards playing and commercial success. What I do see are some quite high figures in the accounts labelled operating costs and non playing costs. And I see some areas which offer big potential for improvement.
One thing I am 100% convinced of is that messing around at 21st in the league table is not why Duchatelet bought Charlton and there needs to be resources freed up and the correct strategy to improve this. Your publication mentions elements of this but I don't see a joined up picture... as above there is a rationale behind the season ticket prices - more later when I get a chance.
And finally it is very clear that the old owners must have stressed the organisation (and individuals) considerably by "sweating the cash flow" and pushing suppliers out to credit terms which might bring on court action and certainly strain or even break supplier relationships. I was in that situation once many, many years ago... I left and the entity turning over £150M collapsed two years later! The irony is that watching Ricardo Fuller score once again for Blackpool on the football League show last night made me think "penny wise, pound foolish". As I have posted before, investing in the right staff on and off the pitch would have made CAFC more saleable and for a higher price - it would probably have put us on a par with Sheffield Wednesday and Huddersfield - not earth shattering but a lot more stable than where we are today.
To be honest, I agree with this to a certain extent. Sure, I'd like to see us win a lot more, but not at any cost.
Me to, i don't wanna see Charlton playing in the lower leagues for seasons at a time with no ambition to play higher but i also want Charlton here for the next generations of my family to support.
Luckily i have seen no evidence that our new owner wishes us to not have any success on the football pitch.
This is precisely where I find difficulties. What RD was referring to with his ' not just about winning' statement was nothing to do with costs and prices. This was where his social experiment/vision comes into play. He thinks that bodies such as churches once operated within communities to bring diverse peoples under one roof. I don't agree with him anyway, but disregarding the accuracy of this idea, RD sees modern day football clubs as fulfilling that community role, hence his comments about the the overall match day experience. It is as though football itself becomes secondary to the 'have a nice day' approach. He is seeing the world in a very different way to us. We really do need to wake up to what he has already said. He is not a football man, as can be seen from his bizarre selection of new players. We need to talk about Roland and the sooner we get on with it, the better.
As always it is an excellent read and is still, for me, an essential component of Charlton Athletic.
Having been one of those who have questioned the appropriateness of G21, I was particularly interested in understanding the rationale behind it.
The key paragraphs for me come on page 25 ... and hopefully Airman will not object if I reproduce them here.
"It's far from clear, yet, that there is any enemy to fight. All of us want to believe in RD's good intentions and to see the club succeed again, on and off the pitch. If we can help him make that happen then we will. But if something else does eventually prove to be necessary, we'll be ready for that too. Just like 25 years ago."
Of course if it was only about winning, I doubt most of us would be Charlton fans. But we do still want to win and I’m sure a fair few dogs and cats get kicked when we lose (apologies to RSPCA for that). I suppose if we lose in the right way - where the players give their best and we try to win then we are more accepting of defeat than say Arsenal fans who might bawl their eyes out because they lose 1-0 at Stoke.
It didn’t feel like the right move to sell Yann – probably because it wasn’t. And we know that there was a contract on the table that Chrissy wouldn’t sign for footballing reasons, which has to be a concern. But selling Stephens probably was the right move with Poyet and Cousins doing the business. Getting an unknown Belgian manager in was to me a big risk and maybe RD has been lucky, because I think we have got a good man in charge. And he seems to be his own man too, which helps me like him.
I suppose whether actions are right or wrong will stand or fall on the results the team achieves. I have been surprised in a positive way so far – Burnley did a job on us, but they are doing a job on most teams they play at the moment. And the team seems as resilient as it was under Powell. If the club pulls a Poyet signing and also Hamer, Morro and Dervitte – and brings in a few good uns – we won’t need this group to continue for much longer. But no problem with being suspicious – things can still go belly up – and we don’t quite know/understand all of the new owner’s motives just yet!
Comments
A great article by Matt on CP. Despite at times reading more like an obituary, it told us all we knew and more about CP's love of the Club, it's fans and it's history and how he managed us in what where without doubt difficult times.
The Editorial is probably the best place to go to see why the G21 met and the concerns raised in their original statement are again raised here. However, the Editorial itself is filled with words and phrases like "apparently", "evidently", "suspect", "our Judgement", "our view", "we still don't know", "we believe", "we have heard" etc. No direct additional facts, just (some correctly justified) concerns as to the direction of the Club. All of which require raising, but, at the moment, I don't see as requiring the initial call to arms response and certainly not the formation of a separate group outside the Trust.
There are to grudgingly positive artilces on both the revised planning application for Sparrows Lane and next seasons ticketing policy. Both of which I'd like to see re-visited in a years time as to their success or not.
Airmans Diary are still the first pages I turn to for all the inside gossip of what's going on inside the Club. Again it doesn't fail to disappoint. Whoever passes him some of these snippets, then please don't ever stop!
We then have SD's column - someone from the G21 who has at least bothered to respond to the queries raised on the opening post on this thread. Again a good read, mainly about the changing face of football club ownership in this Country, but when focussing on what's happened at CAFC, the same tired old phrases come out that are just repeating what's been said in the Editorial. "constant rumours", "as we suspect", "widely reported", "under the impression", "it is believed to be", "it has been said". "it's doubtful". I get the feeling that both of these articles should have been clearly written without these journalistic caveats - and then the word allegedly added at the end.
Next is another Matt article on that pantomime villain Pardew. Excellent piece with a lot of unkown facts about the only manager with a banning order out on him. I just hope he doesn't read it himself. He's quite obviously a thoroughly nasty individual (Pardew, not Matt).
Then there is an article on Airman himself and his relationship and it's breakdown with the Club (amongst others). Thanks at last for you version of the story Airman - it certainly made things clearer from my point of view and it's understandable about your resentment of certain individuals who are running the Club and who really are the good guys and the bad 'uns. Thankfully some of the latter have gone and I have a feeling that the current top trio are soon to be found out that they are currently batting above their average. From my impression of KM she is a smart cookie and doesn't have the wool pulled over her eyes too easily. However, I do believe a lot of people's experience of change management is not a million miles away from yours, so just try not to let it grind at you so often!
Finally, no Fifth Column. Is the cardiganed one on strike?
Agree it was a very strong VOTV. A lot to agree with, disagree with or to ponder which is surely the point
The detail of Airman's dismissal is IMHO the biggest revelation.
Matt Wright is such a good writer and Steve Dixon writes with passion and insight.
And as Seriously Red chose to make the comparison so much better than Trust News..
As Addickted says the Diary pages are always a good read even if you sometimes need a degree in reading between the lines to get all the references. The rapid departure of Kieran Tingle being a case in point.
Sad to see the whole Murray/Varney fall out laid out in print. I can see both sides and just regret it has come to this. I still respect both despite it all and only wish I could lock the two in a room to sort it out. We know that when they work together the winner is Charlton Athletic.
Are we a feeder club to SL - no. etc etc.
I've asked the questions to Meire and Powell once and Murray twice.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks that they will change the answers already given ?
Anyway, we're going round in circles :-)
Who picks the players for recruitment?
Does the manager have autonomy to create a squad of players he wants and needs?
Does the manager have a say in what players to keep?
Why does a senior manager in the inter club settup tell us our best players are likely go to SL in full knowlege of the owner?
Where will the money from sales of best players go?
Good questions too.
I also picked up on the indefinites littered throughout the Oak Group justification. Reading about the message to Powell re Thuram, it seems it's not so much about the owner insisting on picking the team but that he's trying to offload an expensive mistake and take advantage of the fact the FA Cup is televised throughout Europe. Not saying it's right, incidentally, but it's a very different thing from 'you'll play who I tell you'. In fact it's the sort of political compromise you get in modern day business, and I'm quite sure it's not unheard of even in the English leagues, although entirely inappropriate to a sporting competition where a key principle is - and indeed it's a rule - that you should pick your strongest team.
I tend to agree the discussion is unnecessary, but perhaps that's a point for him in the first instance? What you seem to be saying is that no one has a right of reply to Murray, even when what he is saying is highly personal and not factually accurate.
You can never have enough hatchet jobs on Alan Pardew, IMHO ...
Anyway, you're right, I was a bit strong there and am happy to withdraw those references as I applied them to the Murray article.
I stand by them for the entirely unnecessary and frankly beneath us article from the usually more judicious Matt Wright. That can't be described as anything other. I'm no Pardew fan and am aware just how badly he behaved - and that's a big part of the reason why I remain so positive about (and why I think people underestimate) what Parkinson achieved - but why now, why at all? Even if he's the most odious man on earth, why bother when we got him out of our club over 5 years ago?
There was a flavour about this Voice that made me feel a little uneasy, Rick. Can't quite put my finger on it, but it seemed angry for reasons that weren't entirely clear. The Pardew article epitomised it for me. I guess the first post-Powell one was always going to be a little emotional but I don't think it was just that. It was almost as if Powell's sacking released the shackles from you and the other writers, and it became a bit of a free for all, all the things you'd wanted to say for so long you all suddenly got off your chest without stopping and thinking, should I be doing this?
EDIT: I meant to add, I asked myself the question - could Rick not have handled the Murray thing by means of the Diary? I think its length given its focus on discrediting Murray['s comments] was the problem - perhaps it might have been handled in another way?
Great read though, and very high quality writing throughout.
Anyway we digress from the thread topic.
Going forwards it is very clear to me that the newly installed management structure will be held to account by the new owner and that all costs will be examined - is the new structure appropriate and are the individuals the right people for this time. It is logical that we will see change over the summer as new strategies and ideas are employed - will our hearts bleed over departures? RD has already said 'a football club is not just a matter of winning' - this can be interpreted in many ways but it will be intersting to see meat placed on the bones... cheaper season tickets is just one strand to that philosophy...
I believe that while improving the playing side, the new owner will wish to obtain more value for money from the whole club operating model. I have never seen how the administration costs stack up for CAFC and which ones are match related. So no inside knowledge just common sense that everything needs to be geared towards playing and commercial success. What I do see are some quite high figures in the accounts labelled operating costs and non playing costs. And I see some areas which offer big potential for improvement.
One thing I am 100% convinced of is that messing around at 21st in the league table is not why Duchatelet bought Charlton and there needs to be resources freed up and the correct strategy to improve this. Your publication mentions elements of this but I don't see a joined up picture... as above there is a rationale behind the season ticket prices - more later when I get a chance.
And finally it is very clear that the old owners must have stressed the organisation (and individuals) considerably by "sweating the cash flow" and pushing suppliers out to credit terms which might bring on court action and certainly strain or even break supplier relationships. I was in that situation once many, many years ago... I left and the entity turning over £150M collapsed two years later!
The irony is that watching Ricardo Fuller score once again for Blackpool on the football League show last night made me think "penny wise, pound foolish". As I have posted before, investing in the right staff on and off the pitch would have made CAFC more saleable and for a higher price - it would probably have put us on a par with Sheffield Wednesday and Huddersfield - not earth shattering but a lot more stable than where we are today.
To be honest, I agree with this to a certain extent. Sure, I'd like to see us win a lot more, but not at any cost.
Luckily i have seen no evidence that our new owner wishes us to not have any success on the football pitch.
As always it is an excellent read and is still, for me, an essential component of Charlton Athletic.
Having been one of those who have questioned the appropriateness of G21, I was particularly interested in understanding the rationale behind it.
The key paragraphs for me come on page 25 ... and hopefully Airman will not object if I reproduce them here.
"It's far from clear, yet, that there is any enemy to fight. All of us want to believe in RD's good intentions and to see the club succeed again, on and off the pitch. If we can help him make that happen then we will. But if something else does eventually prove to be necessary, we'll be ready for that too. Just like 25 years ago."
I support this 100%.
It didn’t feel like the right move to sell Yann – probably because it wasn’t. And we know that there was a contract on the table that Chrissy wouldn’t sign for footballing reasons, which has to be a concern. But selling Stephens probably was the right move with Poyet and Cousins doing the business. Getting an unknown Belgian manager in was to me a big risk and maybe RD has been lucky, because I think we have got a good man in charge. And he seems to be his own man too, which helps me like him.
I suppose whether actions are right or wrong will stand or fall on the results the team achieves. I have been surprised in a positive way so far – Burnley did a job on us, but they are doing a job on most teams they play at the moment. And the team seems as resilient as it was under Powell. If the club pulls a Poyet signing and also Hamer, Morro and Dervitte – and brings in a few good uns – we won’t need this group to continue for much longer. But no problem with being suspicious – things can still go belly up – and we don’t quite know/understand all of the new owner’s motives just yet!
So much for Standard Liege reserves...